Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Making the right moves

Making the right moves

One thing that delights me about the incoming Abbott government is the way that they are hitting the ground running on abolishing the Green inspired climate change bureaucracy:

The Climate Change Authority, which sets emissions caps, the Climate Commission, which has conducted research into climate change, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which funds renewable technologies, are all slated to be abolished under the plans.

Treasury has responsibility for Low Carbon Australia and the CEFC, while the Industry Department has control over a range of clean technology programs. The Department of Agriculture runs a series of carbon farming programs, while the Department of Families runs household assistance packages, home energy savings programs and the remote indigenous energy program.

Under the Coalition, Low Carbon Australia will be responsible for purchasing emissions reductions under the Coalition’s direct action program.

“What we’ve said is we will commence the merger as soon as the process of appointing the ministry and swearing in the ministry has been complete,” Mr Hunt told the 2GB radio station in Sydney yesterday. “To be frank, during the course of the pre-election period, when we were allowed to consult with departments, we laid out the fact that there would be a merger. “We were express and clear and absolute about that, and we indicated we would like it to begin right from the outset. I imagine that the public servants are preparing to do that. Our agenda was clear and open and that is an official process we’ll go through as soon as possible.”

The moves came as Tony Abbott continued briefings with senior public servants, including the secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Ian Watt, as he continued his transition-to-government plans.

The CEFC confirmed yesterday it had stopped making loans for energy efficiency and clean energy programs. Staff at the $10 billion green bank are seeking a meeting with the incoming Abbott government as a top priority.

“The CEFC congratulates the new government upon its election and will welcome the opportunity to consult with the incoming responsible ministers,” the bank’s chief executive Oliver Yates said. “The CEFC has approached the Coalition to engage in consultations about the transition and looks forward to engaging with the new government concerning how its activities can best be supportive of their policy priorities under Direct Action.”

The Coalition will need to legislate to abolish the CEFC, which has amassed a $560m investment portfolio and leveraged $1.6bn in private sector investment. But the bank is understood to be lobbying a Coalition government to utilise its staff and assets as part of its Direct Action scheme, and change its investment mandate so it could work within the framework of the Coalition’s policy.


Of course I can’t help wondering what a certain apologist for Islam who used to come here on a regular basis will do now… that said although the Abbott government needs to legislate to abolish the greentape infrastructure there is no reason that the government can’t stop them doing anything of substance in the interregnum which is almost as good in real world terms. 
Cheers Comrades




  1. Ray Dixon says:

    So let’s get this straight, Iain – you’re pleased that instead of having programs for clean energy (including household assistance programs, rebates for installing solar, etc) that are fully funded by a carbon tax, the Coalition will spend over $3 billion on its useles Direct action program without the funding source of a carbon tax? This is good economic management, Iain? I see.

  2. Tony says:

    I don’t think that is what he is trying to say at all Ray.
    The level of red tape, and irrelevent bureaucracy, is preventing the scheme from becoming a good one. The line, in the article above, that got me the most, was ?

    The Coalition will need to legislate to abolish the CEFC, which has amassed a $560m investment portfolio and leveraged $1.6bn in private sector investment.

    Why is this money amassed ?
    Why hasn’t it been allocated towards those green schemes seen to be worthy of such investment ?
    What are they waiting for, divine intervention ?

  3. Iain Hall says:

    The programs are lip service at best and you would be hard pressed to notice their passing to be frank, mainly its all aspirational stuff that costs a bomb and deliver no bang…

  4. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, so those programs are paying “lip service” to reducing emissions but Abbott’s is not, Iain? Come on, you don’t believe in man made climate change anyway, so how can you justifiy Abbott’s $3 billion (unfunded) Diect Action program? The bottom line, Iain, is that Abbott’s scrapping of the carbon tax and implementation of the Direct Action program will make the budget bottom line worse.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    My position on Climate change does not matter a jot because even a true believer in AGW would be unable to argue that any of the soon too be abolished programs do any ACTUAL good for the environment. As for Abbott’s Direct action policy well I agree that it won’t make a scrap of difference to the climate BUT it will have other benefits for the environment. As I have said many times I would be very happy to see that policy dropped entirely but even if it isn’t at least Abbott has said that he won’t spend a penny more than its budgeted for even if it does not meet the targets.
    That said there have been a few noises form ALP people today about letting the repeal bills pass in the current senate simply by the ALP abstaining. As I said there is no way that I can see the ALP going to the barricades for the hated carbon tax or the flawed Mining tax either. They may be dumb but some of them realise that to obstruct Abbott’s clear and unequivocal mandate would be consigning themselves to the wilderness for even longer than the (at least) three terms that I expect them to spend there.

  6. GD says:

    Abbott’s $3 billion (unfunded) Diect Action program

    Ray, none of Labor’s programs were funded, except for the Libs’ surplus. Give it a break. Everything that Labor attempted to do ran over budget and over schedule or was abandoned.

    The bottom line, Iain, is that Abbott’s scrapping of the carbon tax and implementation of the Direct Action program will make the budget bottom line worse.

    As if you have been so concerned about the ‘budget bottom line’ these past six years!

    Hypocrite. A bit late to become a fiscal conservative.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Great piece in today’s Age by Mark Kenny:

    The opposites of rash, aggressive, impulsive, and frenetic are probably things like calm, consultative, methodical and steady. Unsurprisingly, these latter words are the ones Tony Abbott wants you to attach to his new government. Abbott is building a public relations case for his administration against the negative backdrop of the ”chaos” he replaced.

    Clearly, the Rudd and Gillard incarnations of Labor were notable not just for their poisonous divisions but for their desperate attempts to rev up the news cycle. In their adolescent plea for friendship, they were prepared to backflip on just about anything. Be just about anything.

    No surprises then that the idyll of an ”adult government” was mentioned a few hundred times in the campaign – straight from the focus groups that one.

    But Abbott’s insistence on taking it slow and steady has as much to do with presenting an antidote to his own reputation as it does Labor’s.

    For Abbott to be successful, he needs to turn around a persistent view of him as a jaw-jutting political bovver boy – a divisive, ideological green beret, gifted at destroying things but with no aptitude for nation-building, for governing. Abbott in week one of his 2013 government is actually running against himself – or at least that version of himself. The slowness of his start is almost jarring. Not one post-election press conference and no cabinet named or sworn in. So much for all the emergencies on the borders, in the budget, in the economy. He even wants politics off the front pages in favour of sport.

    Abbott had actually been standing on the brake pedal before he won, such was his momentum towards office. The signs were there if you looked. Softening the rhetoric, toning down the outrage, winding back the expectations. Witness his surplus promise, which does not even match Labor’s four-year path. It paid dividends. Abbott’s singular aim once the campaign was on was to reassure voters they could switch – that there was a safe alternative.

    The story of Abbott’s stunning success is inseparable from his political maturation. Yet the case against him has been set in aspic. The political left’s fascination at his surprising one-vote victory over Malcolm Turnbull in 2009, the oft-cited proof of his shaky internal mandate and his capacity to divide his own MPs.

    Yet as George Brandis points out, Abbott’s internal support is unrivalled. It is not that he won by a single vote that’s important, it is that he turned that tiny edge into genuine authority, unifying his team to a greater degree than thought possible and forming a spearhead aimed right at Labor’s belly.

    Those clinging to the view that the country’s new prime minister is some kind of one-dimensional throwback to the 1950s simply haven’t been paying attention.

    Labor’s case against Abbott suffered from this very misconception, which goes a long way to explaining why it has serially underestimated him.

    It may be one of the larger ironies of Australian politics that on the socially divisive issue of marriage equality, for example, it is the Catholic conservative Abbott, rather than the atheist progressive Julia Gillard, who eventually delivers, by allowing an unfettered conscience vote among his MPs and, perhaps even, by dropping his previous objections.

    The left’s answer to the Abbott challenge so far has been to assume deceit. To posit that Abbott remains every bit the right-wing ideologue but has hidden his real desire to fully deregulate the workplace, wind back advances for women, re-oppress Aborigines and hand over the environment to big oil and big coal.

    The idea that the Abbott offered in 2013 was not the ”real Tony” was not merely soft thinking, it informed various overreaches of the Labor case – from the working assumption that, in the end, Abbott was unelectable to the embarrassing claim in the penultimate week of the campaign that Abbott had enacted a $10 billion fraud on voters.

    A tweet during the ABC’s Q&A program on Monday summed up the confusion on the political left as people try to reconcile long-held views of Abbott as a hardliner with the reality they see before them.

    Abbott, it was asserted, was economically dry and socially wet.

    Business worries that the reverse is true, pointing to his taxpayer-funded direct action plan to replace Labor’s market-based emissions trading scheme and his taxpayer-funded, gold-plated paid parental leave scheme.

    Neither could be described as ”dry”. Rather, they are entirely political, showing Abbott’s propensity to shape-shift and go beyond his programming to hold the centre.

    The truth is, Abbott in government is likely to be populist, political and pragmatic, rather than right-wing, reactionary and regressive.

    And the longer the left takes to understand this, the longer it will take it to come to terms with its own failings.

    Mark Kenny is The Age’s chief political correspondent.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbott-is-a-new-man-but-the-left-cant-see-it-20130911-2tkl3.html#ixzz2ecP68cdc

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, you have been bleating for 3 years (+) that the Coalition are better financial managers. Now when they get in and you’re faced with an obvious case of Tony Abbott being prepared to throw away $3 billion all you can do is say it doesn’t matter because Labor ran over budget on its programs. Do you ever answer a direct question, GD? Come on, the $3 billion cost of Abbott’s Direct Action is being spent with no revenue source whatsoever to fund it. Answer the question: how does that stack up against the ‘good financial managers’ label you’ve stuck on your precious conservatives?

  9. GD says:

    the $3 billion cost of Abbott’s Direct Action is being spent with no revenue source whatsoever to fund it.

    Hold your horses, Ray. The Libs haven’t been in power a week yet. It’s a bit rich to start the financial critique of their performance.

    Given the savings that the Libs will make from abolishing billions of dollars of useless, wasteful green schemes, a bit of leeway is warranted for an in-coming government to allocate priorities.

    Given the abhorrent fiscal record of the previous regime, I’d suggest you sit back, enjoy your AFL and leave governing of the country to those who are clearly more competent to balance the books than your profligate socialist ideologues.

  10. Tony says:

    They’re still not in power yet guys.
    Sh*t, you’re getting a bit excited here, they haven’t even been sworn in yet have they ?
    Settle down !

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    Abbott hasn’t exactly ‘hit the ground running’, GD – where is he? A full week in the job and not one press conference, not one TV interview and not one announcement. All we’ve seen of Abbott is footage of him sheepishly accepting the keys to The Lodge from Kevin Rudd, looking like he knew he didn’t deserve to be in the big house.

    This is the bloke who claimed there was an economic and budgetary “crisis”, yet he hasn’t lifted a finger and looks like a stunned mullet.

    I have a theory about Abbott that all he ever wanted was to be Prime Minister and, quite frankly, has no idea how to the run the country, no plans, no policies and doesn’t even really care. To him, winning the election was an end result and the whole aim and purpose of his whole political career. Now that he’s won, he’s effectively in retirement.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Personally I find it refreshing that,unlike Gillard and Rudd, Abbott is not going to be a media tart keen on overselling and under-delivering in the Labor style.
    So just remember that governing is all about sound administration rather than media spin.
    Further he has not yet been sworn in so he has not yet got the keys to the lodge..

  13. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, Abbott isn’t up to the job of PM. Mark my words, he’s a failure looking to happen – the Ted Baillieu of Federal politics.

  14. James says:

    So ray just how cleaver are or was Labor?

    They are sending out emails trying to drum up membership and have proven very publicly w3hat others around here know but you refuse to accept. They can’t even add 2 & 2 to make 4 without buggering it up. Labors numeracy is just woeful.

    From the party that ran up record deficits, this membership offer

    Email from the ALP urging me to join. I wanted to see how much it cost and went to https://www.nswalp.com/new-membership/.

    “General” membership is $25.00 for 1 year or $135.00 for 3 years representing a 10% saving according to the boffins at Sussex Street, Sydney.

    By my calcs, 3 years @ $25.00 pa = $75.00, less 10% of $7.50 = $67.50, not the $135.00 demanded. They actually want you to pay a 100% penalty by joining for 3 years.

    And it gets better I thought at first it must have been a joke until I followed the link to the Labor party recruitment page and there it is up there bold as anything.

    They offer different fees for different people eg. Union members, students concessions for pensioners and they are all wrong. Below is the pensioners fees 1 year = $10; 3 year with 10% discount $55. Ah Wayne Swan, Chris Bowen 10% discount, for 3 years that’s more than a 50% increase no discount.

    What fools.

  15. Steve says:

    Hopefully Abbott gets Oz secret police stop al Qaeda homegrown terrorists. It would get him re elected.

    It works for Canada even though our Conservatives are like the Republicans and are just as sexist, racist and corrupt.

    Though we have yet to have a Conservative party riding president subvert justice like Albert Cleary’s mum did as Republican prez for the Brooklyn riding over the Mark Fisher case. Meanwhile his lady friend Angel diPietro gets hired as assistant DA for DA Hynes, the same guy who took both her word and Cleary’s despite hiding out at her dad’s place trying to cone up with an alibi.

    As well Canada actually has never had a terrorist incident. Instead CSIS works with RCMP to entrap would be terrorists.

    In Canada entrapment is legal when done to prevent terrorism.

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    Aw gee, James, so you do know arithmetic? I guess your o-so-clever revelations & calculations are just so conclusive. Yeah, you got them nailed, buddy.

  17. GD says:

    Abbott hasn’t exactly ‘hit the ground running’, GD – where is he? A full week in the job and not one press conference, not one TV interview and not one announcement.

    Ray in answer to your question I offer this summation by a far more experienced and musical commentator than myself:

    After three years of atonal crescendo, the maestro’s hands have pushed firmly downwards – diminuendo – slowing and calming the orchestra. The tempo of national politics has been soothed dramatically and deliberately by the incoming government.

    And in the foyer, the Labor Party is thrashing around like a garage band in an afternoon jam – getting all the attention for all the wrong reasons.

    For those who aren’t musically inclined, Chris Kenny offers this:

    From the crucial first impressions last Saturday night, to the methodical, low-key transition to government this week, Tony Abbott has been purposefully methodical and unobtrusive. It is an orchestrated contrast to Labor’s frenetic time in government and ongoing discord over leadership and the election result.

    This week provided a natural lull because until it is sworn in, the Coalition can do little.

    And with Labor MPs turning on themselves it doesn’t want to distract from the spectacle.

  18. James says:

    So that was your best shot Ray. Your usual head in the sand reply, your usual Labor scripted attempt to turn FACTS around to try and make the other guy look bad.

    Did you go to their site, did you try their different membership calculations, of course not, because if you had you would have been left even more out in the clouds.

    I’d hate to think that you were handling the publics money, you’d short change and skim them at every opportunity no doubt.

    I’d say more than likely you scripted Julia Gillards press releases yesterday when she blamed everyone else for her and Labors failings, and is trying to already rewrite history, had your Monica all over it.

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, quoting biased News Ltd opinion pieces making excuses for Abbott’s gone-to-ground antics in his first week as PM is not a good argument. And not being sworn in yet does not prevent him for talking or indeed from acting on what just over a week ago he was calling a “crisis”.

    My opinion is as good as anyone’s and I reckon I’ll be proved right – i.e. Abbott will be the do-nothing Ted Baillieu of Federal politics and will soon be as unpopular as ever.

    James, you little man, my point was you are making a big deal about next-to-nothing. Who cares if some Gen-Y idiot has made some arithmetic blunders on Labor’s membership fee structure? That’s about the worst you can say about it and it’s not exactly ‘front page news’.

    I’d say more than likely you scripted Julia Gillards press releases yesterday when she blamed everyone else for her and Labors failings, and is trying to already rewrite history, had your Monica all over it.

    And I’d say you need to take the blinkers off. I’ve already said (yesterday on the Indi post) that Gillard is attempting to rewrite history.

    Btw, it’s “moniker”, not “Monica” (Lewinski). Do try to keep up … and grow up.

  20. GD says:

    Great pic James, says it all…

    Obviously from Ray’s comments and those from the Labor elite, it’s clear that Labor haven’t learnt anything from this massive defeat/washout!

  21. GD says:

    quoting biased News Ltd opinion pieces making excuses for Abbott’s gone-to-ground antics in his first week as PM is not a good argument.

    Well Ray, if you got your head out your… ABC and had a look around you’d realise that News Ltd is far more balanced than your ABC.

    Prove me wrong!

    Of course we all pay for your biased ABC media coverage whereas only paying customers get to read News Ltd publications.

    Oddly enough, most Australians prefer News Ltd media compared with your ABC taxpayer funded ALP propaganda.

    Prove me wrong!

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    Prove me wrong!

    Are you nuts, GD? You want me to prove you’re wrong that News Ltd journo opinion pieces are more balanced than ABC journo opinion pieces? That’s just your opinion, GD – it’s not a fact that’s provable one way or the other. The point is you put up a journo’s opinion piece on Abbott to “prove” you were right. Are you nuts, GD?

  23. Iain Hall says:

    Need I remind you that ALL media has one sort of bias or another? It seems to me that you have caught the Lefty disease of thinking that “bias” is something that is only journos of the right exhibit, If you want to see rabid lefty bias look no further than David Marr’s recent quarterly essay. Or the coverage in both the Age and the Guardian.
    As for Chris Kenny’s piece it is far more balanced than you are willing to admit (assuming that you have read it which is unlikely given your tendency to look away from anything that challenges your personal orthodoxy)
    the fact is that Abbott has won the election and I suggest that you now take a step back and see just how he governs as I am going to do rather than keep trying to continue fighting the election that your team has so decisively lost.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, I haven’t caught any “disease”, thank you very much. And it seems to me you have totally misunderstood my argument, which was that GD was using a journalist’s opinion as some kind of evidence that my opinion (that Abbott looks like being a lazy, stunned-mullet, do-nothing PM) was wrong. I don’t give a shit what any journo (left, right or centre) has to say – I form my own opinions. Unlike GD, who obviously believes that ANYTHING favourable to Abbott written by a News Ltd journo is gospel.

  25. James says:

    All that from the person who thinks the newspaper in his area is the bible and is happy enough to have quoted them when it comes to them talking about Cathy McGowan.

    Bloody hypocrite.

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    I don’t think the Border Mail is “The Bible”. And I haven’t quoted them talking about Cathy McGowan. In fact, to my knowledge, they’ve expressed no opinion on her whatsoever. I have merely quoted the facts that the BM has reported being (a) the opinion polls, (b) the actual poll. And that is all I’ve quoted from the Border Mail re McGowan. That hardly makes me a “bloody hypocrite”, James, but claiming it does – in your usual sneering immature style – makes you a “bloody idiot”.

  27. James says:

    No Ray once again you think you are the holly grail, you sneer at polls, yet quote the Mail polls and then sneer at those who quote excerpts from other publications.
    You can’t have it both ways. You’ve also quoted other in print material about Sophie Mirrabella and then added your own derogatory smutty cracks.
    You also mentioned the other day a blog you said you ran called Álpine Opinion’, you should make sure when you think that you’ve had a blog site cancelled that the material from the site actually is erased. I’ve been back tracking on the rubbish you put out on that, you’ve certainly got a history of trying to put everyone else and their opinions down, haven’t you?

  28. Iain Hall says:

    Did you read the source document Ray?

  29. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes, I read it, Iain. The journo thinks it’s a sign of stability that Abbott has gone to ground in his first 10 days. A sign of ‘steady as she goes’. You like it because it confirms your bias but in the end it’s just one person’s opinion. My opinion is Abbott’s reaction to winning the election suggests he’s achieved his end goal already and will be the greatest empty vessel we’ve ever seen occupy the Lodge. The Ted Baillieu of Federal politics. And at this stage, my opinion is as valid as yours, GD’s or any journo’s. At least it’s original thought, Iain.

  30. Ray Dixon says:

    James, my blog was not “cancelled” on me, I simply decided to stop writing it after nearly 8 years as I’d grown tired of it and it took up too much time. I moved on.

    But as for your unsubstantiated innuendo about the content (which I fully realise some of it can be found if you can be bothered doing so – ie if you like to stalk people) you can shove your insults where the sun don’t shine mate. What “rubbish” have you been tracking James? Go on, stop using empty and false accusations and put some of what you’ve found up here. Or just shut up and stop playing the man.

    And I’m not sure which planet you live on but my blog was widely acknowledged and to this day I still get emails from ex-readers far and wide begging me to restart it. And no, they’re not from one side of politics or the other – they’re from ordinary decent people who found my blog informative & entertaining. You really are an insulting little twerp who just attacks those who you disagree with, aren’t you?

    As for the rest of your insulting and ignorant comment, it’s not worth responding to.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: